Well, Barney, I have read that opinion many times, and I know that you are either lying about having read it, lying about what Scalia wrote, or an embarrassingly incompetent reader. Here is the key passage:

Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,”... and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.

That's plain old deference to the democratic process and a resistance to creative interpretation of constitutional text. There is nothing — absolutely nothing — to support the proposition that Scalia thinks it's a good idea to lock up gay people. It's the usual notion that judges shouldn't be basing their decisions on whether they think a statute is a good idea or not. It's the same point made by Justice Thomas (who, Frank says, is not a homophobe):

I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.

I guess I have missed the background story on the Frank-Scalia feud. Dear Ole Barney may be trying to hide his connections to the financial crisis. I don't think he should fear any of that surfacing at any time soon, not with these mainstream media. In any case, I guess what irks Frank is the language in Scalia's opinion, and his reference to "homosexuals"...perhaps?

Barney is employing a tried-and-true tactic of the Democrat party: when the spotlight is aimed at you (for Barney, over Fannie/Freddie), distract its attention by pointing out an even worse outrage, thus:

Well, Barney, I have read that opinion many times, and I know that you are either lying about having read it, lying about what Scalia wrote, or an embarrassingly incompetent reader.

Barney Frank is a liar and he is incompetent. However, he is now a hero of the New RepubliK, along with Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Heroes of the New RepubliK do not have to tell the truth or be competent. They care not about the law if it conflicts with their personal agenda or campaign contributors agendas.

I'll bet old Barney also believes that Scalia is angry, frankly, about the existence of gay houses of prostitution being run out of congressmen's homes too.

Yes, Barney Frank has misrepresented deplorably Scalia's position. But as a recovering textualist, I think this post highlights what is fundamentally wrong with textualism and judicial deference to legislative will -- namely, the presumption in favor of that legislative democratic majority, when in reality all judicial presumptions should be in favor of individual liberty and against locking people up in cages. Because of my moral opposition to abortion, I used to mock the "invention" by the judiciary of the so-called "right to privacy." Now my attitude is, that since the Constitution doesn't expressly abrogate our right to privacy vis-a-vis the government, the right to privacy is one of those fundamental rights retained by the people.

Trial lawyers always talk about "waiving the bloody shirt." That phrase refers to a DA picking up the murder victim's bloody clothes he has introduced into evidence, and talking about the horror of the crime during closing argument. Frank has mastered how to express horror about the actual supression of Homosexual activity in the world until the late 1990's. So Frank is doing what the DA's did: claiming so much moral indignation that it outweighs all rational arguements. The people who want to believe in Frank just because he is Gay are now being fooled big time.

This should surprise nobody. Disagree with Obama and you are a racist. Disagree with Frank and you are a homophobe.

This is what they do. Run home to "momma" (political correctness) anytime their particular group has some "'splainin'" to do.

They are cowards who hide from the truth using smoke-and-mirrors to shine the light of truth away from themselves. Good to be reminded that they wish to hide behind the robes of liberal judges who believe in a so-called 'living constitution' instead of the bedrock the Founding Fathers conceived.

I saw that on CNN this morning, and Frank made a pretty salient point, one that jumped out at me in con law: isn't Scalia's Lawrence dissent somewhat inconsistent with his Romer dissent? Granted, he prioritizes legislation at the state level in both cases, but in Lawrence, he seems to be saying that gays and lesbians should have every legislative opportunity to achieve equality, an opportunity that he would have foreclosed under Romer. To foreclose gays and lesbians from being able to seek local before state, and state before federal, remedies, has the practical effect of barring them from seeking remedies at all.

Being from Massachusetts, I always try to warn people about that old meme about the "brainy" and "intellectual" Barney Frank. Michael Barone cedes the "brainy" compliment today, in an otherwise critical article.

I think that intriguing, intellectually honest, hard-charging iconoclast left the political stage at least ten years ago.

Now my attitude is, that since the Constitution doesn't expressly abrogate our right to privacy vis-a-vis the government, the right to privacy is one of those fundamental rights retained by the people.

See, I would argue that that the right to determine privacy is therefore retained by the states, since all rights, regardless of whether you call them "fundamental" or "inalienable", are just determined by the people anyway.

I had a bet with elcubanitoKC about this very thing. Check out this comment thread. I have not had to say one word. elcubanitoKC has graciously admitted defeat and paid up on the bet -- though I can't remember now which comment thread it was in. I admit the bet is ongoing. I think the likelihood of my having to pay up is vanishingly small.

All of this, of course, has nothing to do with the fact that Barney Frank is an embarrassment -- and that the press fell down (again) by not calling him out on this ridiculous rant of his.

This is why liberals have a bad impression of Althouse commenters. A post criticizing Barney Frank's views on a Supreme Court opinion yields comments calling him a "lisping" "bitter queen."

Incidentally, I agree with Althouse's post. Scalia is way too smart to reduce any personal animus towards gays to a written opinion. He does, however, refer to gays exclusively with the clinical term "homosexual" even though there are virtually no gay groups that use the term to describe themselves. And his deference to the democratic process is much more consistent with respect to socially conservative legislation than liberal legislation.

Granted, he prioritizes legislation at the state level in both cases, but in Lawrence, he seems to be saying that gays and lesbians should have every legislative opportunity to achieve equality, an opportunity that he would have foreclosed under Romer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Amendment 2 at the heart of Romer passed by the people of Colorado?

Scalia didn't seek to "foreclose" the "legislative opportunity" of anyone, but to not to have SCOTUS interfere with constitutional choice made directly by the people of Colorado.

"Since the Constitution doesn't expressly abrogate our right to privacy vis-a-vis the government, the right to privacy is one of those fundamental rights retained by the people."

I don't think rights "retained by the people" but not explicitly mentioned in (or reasonably implied by) the Constitution are "fundamental rights" as that expression is used in constitutional law. And I don't think the Supreme Court is authorized to enforce them on constitutional grounds.

Yes, which I think I acknowledged in my comment. But Scalia's argument--that minority groups must seek vindication of their rights only through legislatures, and through the highest level of legislation possible--loses a lot of its weight when the practical consequences are considered. If you make it unconstitutional in a state for a minority group to achieve equal rights at a local level, then you're allowing animus against a particular group to prevent that group from asserting its rights in the same way that any other group can. In Lawrence, that same animus motivated the state legislation against sodomy. Despite the (typically eloquent) arguments by Scalia about courts trumping legislatures, to many readers of Lawrence and Romer, it looks like Scalia is trying awfully hard to justify laws that clearly exhibit an animus toward gays and lesbians. Reading Lawrence and Romer together, you think: wouldn't Scalia's logic overturn Brown v. Board of Education?

Just as liberals prefer to ignore the Tenth Amendment, hard conservatives like Scalia and Thomas fail to appreciate the Ninth Amendment, the one Bork called "an inkblot."

Somehow they can't get their minds around the idea that "the pursuit of happiness" is void of meaning if you cannot conduct your most meaningful relationships as you see fit, and the means to do it are protected by the Ninth.

And, Hovsep, we've all read the comments at liberal blogs. I wouldn't act so high and mighty.

Scalia's Lawrence dissent claims an inability to distinguish criminalization of consensual private homosexual conduct from laws against bestiality and child pornography. This is not a clear-cut case of anti-gay animus but it certainly suggests some intellectual dishonesty of the sort Althouse accuses Frank.

There clearly is a right to privacy as well as a right to engage in consensual sexual behavior with other adults of the same gender.

It's called the Ninth Amendment. And they are called "unenumerated rights".

While I appreciate both Justice's position of a literal/strict reading of the Constitution, what they....and most other originalists...forget is that the Constitution was designed to both serve as a limit on the reach of government and to extend individual liberty to the greatest potential possible.

Of course, the Ninth Amendment is the most underused Amendment within the Bill of Rights.

Equating gays and lesbians to a "minority group" is where the argument falls off the rails.

We're talking about behavior, not a state of race (that which falls into a "state of being" rather than choice). It is a very dangerous precedent to associate behavior with race or sexual preference.

The case was about sodomy. That behavior has no sexual preference, as it can be performed by heterosexuals or homosexuals. The fact that the plaintiffs were gay has no bearing on this decision, except by those who are either idiots or liberty-charlatans.

What Frank and company are suggesting is that the state of Texas should be prohibited from writing laws about behavior they condone, and they manage to frame their arguments in liberty-speak. Denying The People their right to form any government of their choosing, and to enact (through their respective legislatures) laws and regulations of behavior of their choosing, is what liberty is all about. Agree or disagree, soapbox to your heart's content, but the crux of liberty is allowing The People to decide what behavior they wish to criminalize and that which is out of the bounds of government meddling.

It doesn't matter if you agree that sodomy should be criminalized or not. What matters is if you support the right of The People to determine what behavior and activities should be legal or illegal. No where in the Constitution does the Federal government have the authority to decide that matter for The People in Texas (or any other state). If Texas wants to have laws against public fornication or sex without marriage, it is within their right to do so. This is no different. As long as the laws apply equally to all, it is allowed.

What Frank is proposing is that the Constitution be amended to say something like, "The People, through their legislatures, in the several states are prohibited from passing laws against behavior we like."

I think sodomy laws are silly, too. That has no bearing on my opinion that The People in their respective states have every right and authority to make those activities criminal, if they desire to do so. I get to try to convince them otherwise and to vote for representatives that agree with my opinion. Everyone else gets to the same single vote.

I'm not high and mighty. I certainly make inappropriate and politically incorrect comments here and elsewhere. But Althouse just recently made a stink about Ezra Klein smearing her commenters for their anti-Semitic remarks about him. If your criticism of Frank is that he's wrong or stupid or dishonest or whatnot, fine. But if you're calling him a lisping queen then don't expect your forum to be respected by others.

This is why liberals have a bad impression of Althouse commenters. A post criticizing Barney Frank's views on a Supreme Court opinion yields comments calling him a "lisping" "bitter queen."

I said Frank had become a "cosseted, bitter queen."

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the double entendre of "cosseted queen." I used it to describe Frank's protected, underserved status as the gay public advocate in Congress, given what I perceive as his abandonment of intellectual honesty on a host of issues over time.

I used the term to express disappointment at how far he's fallen, not animus at his orientation, which has been a constant.

Yet, I also think bitterness in his personal and public life plays a big role in Frank's abandonment of intellectual honesty. Maybe the better term is cynicism, but Frank has ceased to care about the honesty of his arguments, where I think he did before. Even in the face of unprecedented gains in gay rights. I think his (somewhat public) personal set backs and looking into the maw of his own conflicted incompetence in the present financial crisis has created a cognitive dissonance that has taken a toll to say the least.

And you don't think Frank's words toward Scalia out of left field don't drip with bitterness?

Connie du Toit said "the crux of liberty is allowing The People to decide what behavior they wish to criminalize and that which is out of the bounds of government meddling."

This is wrong on so many levels. (And to think my mother's maiden name was Dutoi.) Most basically, "The People" is a legal fiction. Secondly, the crux of liberty is allowing human beings to pursue happiness in whatever way they individually see fit so long as they don't infringe on the equal rights of others to do the same. The crux of liberty is recognizing that no one and no group of people (even a group of people calling themselves "The People") has any authority to tell others how to live their lives. Every exercise of force against others is either morally justified or morally unjustified, and the imprimatur of the government has no effect on whether a particular use of force lies on one side of the fence or the other.

Geez. I use "homosexual" to be inclusive of gays AND lesbians. So what are they calling themselves this week?

"Gay" (which can include lesbians) or "gay and lesbian". I've been an openly gay adult for 15 years now and I don't remember a time when gays referred to themselves or each other as homosexuals. That's nice that you want to be sensitive and inclusive of lesbians, but if you are at a party and refer to your "homosexual friends" people will think you are weird, not sensitive and inclusive. The people who use that term today usually do it because they are uncomfortable talking about sexuality or because they have some ideological opposition to recognizing gays as a group or anything but people who engage in a clinical behavior. Choosing to use that term is certainly not an obvious indicator of animus but its a very deliberate choice and a pretty unusual way to refer to gay people today.

This is wrong on so many levels. (And to think my mother's maiden name was Dutoi.) Most basically, "The People" is a legal fiction. Secondly, the crux of liberty is allowing human beings to pursue happiness in whatever way they individually see fit so long as they don't infringe on the equal rights of others to do the same.

Yes, I think we need to distinguish between "liberty" in the abstract and "self-government," which is was the goal of the framers in general. Pragmatically, the latter is the means of securing the former. Of course, it's not entirely foolproof - the mechanics of our system of self-government occasionally undermine liberty rather than enhancing it - but it was conceived as the best of a limited set of possibilities. Most likely, it still is. After all, a Dictatorship of Nine may possibly increase liberty right now - but at the cost of clearing a path to tyranny. These things require a long view.

Well, I so glad Thomas finds Texans' desire to burst into people's bedrooms and lock 'em up if they're having gay sex "silly." Silly Texans! That's just so silly of you. You can do it, but it's silly! But don't do any silly stuff like discriminate based on race. That would be worse than silly! Majority rules, except when we say it doesn't And silly isn't the standard.

A person may decide he wants his dogs to bark in his back yard all night. This is oblivious to me, as one of my coworkers used to say, but apparently an inexplicable number of people want that.

If that person lives in the middle of a 50-acre-plot in the country, his dogs can bark themselves hoarse as far as I'm concerned. If he's next door to me, after 10:00 PM I'm going to call the police and invoke the local noise ordinance (after nicely asking him to quiet his dogs and not getting cooperation, of course.) The ordinance itself is a manifestion of "the people" living in close proximity in a town and trying to figure out what rights they/we have and don't have and where the government should be able to step in.

I really wish someone could explain to me how a sitting Congressman can say he didn't know his live in boyfriend was running a sausage stand in his own house and then end up being Chair of the House Financial Services Committee.

"One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is 'an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.'

Ante, at 14. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home.

They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

"The people who use that term today [homosexual] usually do it because they are uncomfortable talking about sexuality or because they have some ideological opposition to recognizing gays as a group or anything but people who engage in a clinical behavior."

Puh-leeze. I used to be a homosexual, then I was gay, then I was a queer, etc. etc. Just as is the case with blacks and every other identifiable subgroup, the names change due to fashion, ideology, and the rest. I can remember endless and pointless and nasty arguments within the community in favor or against these and other words.

For someone of Scalia's generation, "homosexual" was the preferred, value-free word. In fact, it's probably the only word that has remained in general use for well over a century; if he had used "gay" the opinion might well sound quite dated in a few years. It also does not actually refer to sexual acts, as Scalia clearly understands by his context, talking about homosexuals as an organized community. Homo=same, sex=gender. A supreme court justice should not have to worry that ignorant people will misunderstand him.

I don't think any other commenter has noted that in fact we queeromosexays are very far from persecuted in the US. Au contraire. The very very occasional violation of privacy by police hardly warrants much attention in light of the kind of world we live in, let alone the flag-waving "rights" crusade typified by what Frank has become.

I remember Frank as sensible and not particularly correct. I suppose residence in the cocoon eventually takes its toll.

Choosing to use that term is certainly not an obvious indicator of animus but its a very deliberate choice and a pretty unusual way to refer to gay people today.

This is why the rest of us need a regularly updated code book. Knowing the appropriate designations for our minorities really would make our lives much easier as not all of us run in such diverse circles and don't always get the info. I remember back when referring to a colored person was ok and calling someone 'black' was bad. Now African-American is preferred even if you're from Hati. Then you have Titus calling other gays fags but only fags can call each other fags. It's all so hard to keep up with.

The crux of liberty is recognizing that no one and no group of people (even a group of people calling themselves "The People") has any authority to tell others how to live their lives.

You're describing a pure libertarian utopia, which the United States has never been.

To evaluate Scalia's argument, it helps to understand that the US government has a long and well-established history of regulating private behavior. This is not limited to gays - consider the prohibitions against prostitution, drug use and bigamy. Or the fact that it's illegal to buy liquor in Grove City, Pennsylvania.

All sorts of inherently private activities are subject to legal restrictions in America, so it is hard for me to see why gay sex in particular should be exempt.

"I've been an openly gay adult for 15 years now and I don't remember a time when gays referred to themselves or each other as homosexuals."

It was 16 years ago!

When I went to college in Kansas, I was startled to find people my own age still using "colored." In the larger city where I lived, nobody younger than my grandfather called them that.

I suppose I could have ripped them for that, but surely anti-rural bigotry for not being up to date with the big cities is not much better.

And really, in the context of a legal opinion, this is idiotic. They were called "homosexuals" for most of the 20th century by the medical and legal establishment. Continuing to use the term in that context when you've decided something else is preferable is evidence of... precisely nothing, it seems to me.

This is why the rest of us need a regularly updated code book. Knowing the appropriate designations for our minorities really would make our lives much easier...

But Hoosier, that would negate the need for the code book. The terms change solely so anyone NOT of a particular stripe can be 'legitimately' called a (fill in the blank)ist when they fail to know the current code.

Then you have folks like me; who don't care what the code is. If you are offended by a designation that may be 20 minutes out of date, your an idiot anyway.

"'the pursuit of happiness' is void of meaning if you cannot conduct your most meaningful relationships as you see fit, and the means to do it are protected by the Ninth."

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments *recognize* rights retained by the states and the people, but do not *grant* them. They aren't constitutional rights, and therefore can't be enforced by the courts as if they were.

The only federal constitutional issue raised by laws restricting such rights is whether the legislature had a reasonable basis for enacting them. (State courts may apply more rigorous standards if the state constitution or laws permit it.)

I think it's pretty clear that Barney's trying to change the subject from his role in the financial fiasco. Even if he gets called on his bogus red herring waving about homophobia, he's still accomplishing his goal, which is changing the subject.

"The crux of liberty is allowing human beings to pursue happiness in whatever way they individually see fit so long as they don't infringe on the equal rights of others to do the same. The crux of liberty is recognizing that no one and no group of people (even a group of people calling themselves "The People") has any authority to tell others how to live their lives. Every exercise of force against others is either morally justified or morally unjustified, and the imprimatur of the government has no effect on whether a particular use of force lies on one side of the fence or the other."

The Constitution doesn't establish libertarianism as the governing political philosophy of the United States.

..the crux of liberty is allowing human beings to pursue happiness in whatever way they individually see fit so long as they don't infringe on the equal rights of others to do the same. The crux of liberty is recognizing that no one and no group of people ...

Etc, etc. Lot's of bold declarative sentences there, but a notable absence of reasoning. Who says that those things are the crux of liberty? You?

There is a deeper issue here. The weakness of President Obama has now shifted the direction of the Federal Government to the control of the US Congress. By far the strongest leader in either house is Nancy Pelosi. She is now the de facto chief executive of the United States. Yet, the people did not elect her. She was elected by a majority of the voters in a very nonstandard atypical, to say the least, district. She has become a petty tyrant with very great personal power. It's difficult to imagine how this situation can be rectified in the short term. The system is broken. Barney Frank is simply a, or the, gay clown prince of the new dictatorship of the House of Representatives. As such he provides support to Queen Nancy in her home district, and, pathetically, that's all that counts today.

A dog barking in the middle of the night in the middle of a neighborhood is certainly something that can be characterized as an infringement on others that can legitimately be prevented, by force or fine or confiscation of dog if necessary. I'd also note that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, the principle of "majority rules" is far less problematic in the context of very local governments of township size, since actual participation in the decisions of the community is more feasible and since leaving the community if one disagrees with its ordinances is more feasible.

Someone said that the Constitution doesn't enshrine libertarianism. This is one reason why the Anti-Federalists were right. And not that it matters if we're examining the legitimacy of a particular exercise of government force, but who on this comment thread voted to ratify the Constitution?

And in response to another commenter: I invoked no authority to support my declarations that the "crux of liberty" is such-and-such. To my mind and others', these are self-evident truths.

If someone deliberately uses a term that is different than the term used by the vast majority of the population, I think it is reasonable to consider the motive for that deliberate choice. For example, Black and African-American are both in about equal use today. If you use the term Negro or colored, most people will wonder why you made that deliberate choice since those terms are not commonly used in most of the country.

I don't think its inherently offensive to use "homosexual" by any means. I just think it speaks of either discomfort or some kind of agenda since most people don't refer to gays as "homosexuals" today.

What I do find offensive is the idea expressed by Scalia that its impossible to distinguish private homosexual conduct from incest or child pornography.

Josef Hovsep: "Gay" (which can include lesbians) or "gay and lesbian". I've been an openly gay adult for 15 years now and I don't remember a time when gays referred to themselves or each other as homosexuals.

Dude, we've all read the Zombie-time blog entry and seen all the pictures of the Gay Day Parade in San Francisco.

And you're critical of us for what you see as disrespecting you for use of the term homosexual.

While you people were riding each other like rodeo bull riders in the public streets, in front of women and children?

I love Barney Frank. He is not embarassing to the gay community, well except Gay Patriot natch.

He's not bitter. He represents some of the weathiest towns in Mass, fabulous places like Newton. Newton is a big jewish comuunity too. I love fabulous towns. Granted Barney Frank would not be able to get voted to represent Biloxi but thats ok. Massachusetts is fabulous. Lowest divorce rate and highest school test rates. One of the richest and most educated states in the country but there is something wrong with the place. All the fabuous hopsitals and universities and research facilities for cancer drugs and shit make it one commie state.

He's funny as shit.

I think Scalia is probably a homophobe but not because some ruling. I just smell a homophobe in him. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I think everyone is entitled to be any type of phobe just as long as they don't hurt anyone. I am an onionphobe.

Wow, it's hard to know who to hate in this thread, the knuckle dragging troglodyte gay-haters or the whining, vaporous vegan homosexuals. It's times like these that I remember that I despise Democrats for co-opting the noble gay agenda into their "coalition" of liars, sinners, swindlers and socialists and the Republicans for allowing this to happen by submitting their party to the will of social conservatives above all others.

I respect the reasons for having two political parties, but does it have to be these two?

"Dude, we've all read the Zombie-time blog entry and seen all the pictures of the Gay Day Parade in San Francisco.

And you're critical of us for what you see as disrespecting you for use of the term homosexual.

While you people were riding each other like rodeo bull riders in the public streets, in front of women and children?

And it's us disrespecting you?"

Joseph doesn't have the abs to be riding anyone in a gay parade. I doubt you saw him there.

I hate nasty demonstrative faggots just as much as the next normal person, but that doesn't mean you can infer things about the majority from the activities of the minority. But if we're going to play by those rules, then you must love Barack Obama, since a lot of American seem to. Really! I see them on tv!

"If someone deliberately uses a term that is different than the term used by the vast majority of the population, I think it is reasonable to consider the motive for that deliberate choice...Black and African-American [versus]...Negro or colored...."

It is equally, if not more, reasonable to question why certain people keep demanding that new names replace old ones, over and over. You'd almost think there was some sort of cranky political agenda behind it all. /sarcasm

Funny how "colored person" is now unacceptable but "person of color" is recommended.

This sort of political correctness tends to turn me into a person of choler.

"And you're critical of us for what you see as disrespecting you for use of the term homosexual."

I never said that. Go ahead and use it. I'm just saying refusing to use the mainstream term for something is not a neutral choice.

Palladian, I'm not vaporous (and I've got the abs but not the inclination). Whiny or not, I think its not unreasonable to suspect animus by Scalia even if he is smart enough not to come out and say we gross him out.

I'm always a little confused by people who feel personally put off by people who don't eat meat.

"Secondly, the crux of liberty is allowing human beings to pursue happiness in whatever way they individually see fit so long as they don't infringe on the equal rights of others to do the same. The crux of liberty is recognizing that no one and no group of people (even a group of people calling themselves "The People") has any authority to tell others how to live their lives."

If you want to argue for this position in the political arena, that is fine. I think you are incorrect, however, if you believe that this position is endorsed by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.

If someone deliberately uses a term that is different than the term used by the vast majority of the population, I think it is reasonable to consider the motive for that deliberate choice. For example, Black and African-American are both in about equal use today. If you use the term Negro or colored, most people will wonder why you made that deliberate choice since those terms are not commonly used in most of the country.

Labels change over time. Sometimes, they get enshrined in the names of organizations. Should the NAACP (National Association of Colored People) change its name? How about the United Negro College Fund? Or the Congressional Black Caucus? Or Black Entertainment Television?

The word homosexual has a valid definition that doesn't change with the whim of a group of individuals. Using that term in a legal ruling isn't derogatory, it's a necessity because Supreme Court rulings must be able to stand the test of time.

To make this easy: What Connie Du T. said. She has always been much smarter than I. (BTW, how is Kim? Miss you guys.)

From dictionary.com:

"pho⋅bi⋅a /ˈfoʊbiə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [foh-bee-uh] Show IPA–nouna persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.Origin:1780–90; extracted from nouns ending in -phobia

Synonyms:aversion, hatred."

So, homophobe is an irrational hatred of homos? Sorry, homosexuals. I have no irrational hatred or dislike of those that practice the lifestyle, I just do not like them because of past associations with the pushy ones. Perfectly rational as far as I am concerned.

Scalia was deciding the issue due to concerns about the 10th Amendment it seems to me. Or that explanation is 'good enough'.

Hoosier/Larry--homosexual is not pejorative/derogatory and I didn't say it was. And you don't need to hang around gay people to notice that "gay" is the word everyone uses. Just watch TV or read the paper or the internet.

JOhn K - I think this post highlights what is fundamentally wrong with textualism and judicial deference to legislative will -- namely, the presumption in favor of that legislative democratic majority, when in reality all judicial presumptions should be in favor of individual liberty

If you notice, the Constitution begins with "We the People" and spells out what the Constitution is supposed to achieve in the Goals (Preamble). The rest is methods specified to achieve the goals. After the main text was passed around, many thought it should add more about rights.

But do not think the Constitution exists as a document to provide a laundry list for deviants not in the majority. It is primarily an Operating Manual for a nation trying to fix it's 1st shot - the Constitution of the Articles of Confederation, which were a dismal failure for failing to define a good operating Gov't structure and optimum assignmnent of authority between the 3 branches of government, at and between the State and Fed level, and The People.

Individual liberty was just a component, and was not to be applied universally by the "Holy Founders".

And they erred in making it too difficult for The People to change, a trend that worsened once people realized that organized opposition in the form of lobbies and special interest groups can effectively paralyze all future Amendments even a small part of the population disagrees with (the successful repeal of the Poll Tax then the blocking of other civil rights initiatives from being Amendments, and the lessons learned in blocking the ERA).

Which leave 9 lawyers as the only Group who can foist unwanted Amendment on The People, usurping the democratic process. Something Scalia and others warn repeatedly of. The American People had one Civil War over supreme court meddling (Dred Scott) and the unresolvable, unAmendable conflict over the Sacred Right to 5th Amendment property (slaves) and States Rights.

Dann - While I appreciate both Justice's position of a literal/strict reading of the Constitution, what they....and most other originalists...forget is that the Constitution was designed to both serve as a limit on the reach of government and to extend individual liberty to the greatest potential possible.

No, the Constitution and the votes of the People over the last 220 years strongly indicate America was not ever set up to be a libertarian paradise of maximum freedoms for any group, with no social norms in force or any collective responsibility demanded.

No, the Constitution is simply an Operating Manual for a Nation crafted by the majority with an eye towards certain rights of the minority - but not all. "Rights" appear as an afterthought after a largely nuts and bolts main text.

Leave it to Ann to decide on the "key passage" - and then talk about lazy, incompetent, disingenuous writers. Those who accuse others with whom they disagree on a gay rights issue of subscribing to a "homosexual agenda" are commonly and correctly, seen as homophobes.

I respect the reasons for having two political parties, but does it have to be these two?

My thoughts for years. I curse both parties every time I vote. (This past election was one of the few in many years where I consciously voted for a major candidate--my Representative--rather than simply against the other guy (I do deliberator vote for various city council members.))

"It's times like these that I remember that I despise Democrats for co-opting the noble gay agenda into their "coalition" of liars, sinners, swindlers and socialists and the Republicans for allowing this to happen by submitting their party to the will of social conservatives above all others."

bustardblog said..."Leave it to Ann to decide on the "key passage" - and then talk about lazy, incompetent, disingenuous writers."

I have to agree. I think this is probably what caught Barney's attention:

Scalia: "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home.

They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive."

They also don't want rapists, bank robbers, pedophiles, common criminals or liars, etc. working or living with them.

This is the "crux" of my position: examining the question of governmental legitimacy closely and rigorously reveals governmental "authority" to be a house of cards. It's all smoke and mirrors and mythology. The question of governmental legitimacy is not a question I've recently become interested in solely to justify my libertarian preferences. As I noted upthread, I used to be quite taken and persuaded by Scalia's textualism, because again, the question of legitimacy has always been important to me, even in my pre-libertarian days. Textualism seemed to provide a decent basis for determining the legitimacy of government actions and decisions, until I thought about it a little harder.

The reality that governmental authority is a house of cards is a basis for a presumption of liberty. We're left to rely upon the simple moral question of whether a particular use of coercion and violence is morally justified or unjustified. I submit that you have to be very sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, before you conclude that force is justified. Aren't we taught this as kids -- you only use fists or force on others as a last resort, in order to defend yourself or others. Somehow we forget this as adults, once we've organized ourselves into political parties.

Barney Frank is just a long standing, money grubbing, opportunist pig who has accomplished little to nothing in his life except for getting the morons of his district to re-elect him over and over again. It is irrelevant that he also happens to be one of the most repugnant, revolting homosexuals to grace the face of the earth. But for him to out and out lie about Justice Scalia, impugn him by calling him a homophobe without a shred of decency or proof is frankly libelous and defamatory. I'd love to see Scalia bring suit against this fat, bloated pig of a human being.

Frank is a totally incompetent buffoon that is unworthy of the office he holds. His distraction methods are so transparent that even those close to him think that he's lost his mind and wonder where this hatred is coming from. Barney, you've finally become unhinged from all of lying you've done in your life, from the sordid life you've been living while cloaking your mental incapacity in the only place you could hide it, Congress.

Hoosier/Larry--homosexual is not pejorative/derogatory and I didn't say it was.

Well if that's the case then basically what you're saying is that the term is simply out of vogue? Rather like saying 'groovy' instead of 'cool'? If it's too clinical of a term than I think at best Scalia can be described as just being a square ;-)

It is irrelevant that he also happens to be one of the most repugnant, revolting homosexuals to grace the face of the earth.

Then why mention it?

The qualifying of the word "homosexuals" with the words "repugnant" and "revolting" is hardly subtle. This is fine, just so long as everyone here knows that Methadras' vociferous hatred of gay people influences every comment he makes.

I think its odd the way Althouse takes offense at the audacity of Barney Frank to suggest that Scalia doesn't like gay people based on his written opinion in which he states that the reasons for criminalizing homosexual conduct can't be distinguished from those for incest or child pornography and legitimizes the fear of "many Americans" of having gays allowed to have contact with children in their communities.

But Althouse feels little inhibition in suggesting that people who trashed Jindal's state of the union response were secretly racist. Seems like somewhat unequal standards of proof.

"I don't know who exactly you're referring to (people in pride parades, fetishists, exhibitionists?), but there are plenty of straight people who are just as 'offensive.' Where's the outrage over them?"

I don't know exactly what straight people you're referring to. Jackasses who don't mind their kids' behavior in public? Frat boys who are insensitive about women? Maybe the outrage over them is directed at their, you know, behavior. Specific behavior that's irritating, obnoxious, childish, offensive, etc., and that no one needs to see or hear in a public place.

I have a question only slightly related to this and not at all related to any of the previous comments (since I haven't read them yet.)

Is the difference in Frank's perception of Scalia and Thomas one of opportunity (ie. he's lying), or is it a difference of perception caused by a mode of expression favoring cold reason over emotion? Thomas uses "feelie" words?

And I wonder (because my mind works this way) if shows like "Bones" where the main character is someone of good-will but lacks emotional empathy (is she supposed to have Asbergers?) is going to give the forces of reason any sort of boost over time.

...I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda...

There you have it. Scalia is accusing gays of "promoting their agenda." This is the language of the religious right who have initiated and led the fight over homosexuality.

Scalia has, in other statements ignored by Althouse, compared homosexuality to bestiality and polygamy. He has said hateful things about gays.

Gays want to be left alone. But the right wing has singled out this small minority for second class citizenship status, including:

- Denying them marriage and partner benefits. - Denying them visitation rights when their partner is in the hospital. - Denying them parental rights, in some cases even where they are the biological parent. - Allowing employment discrimination.

I cannot recall Ann Althouse ever having spoken out against this vicious agenda. Or using gays as a political tool for distraction and division.

Does Ann Althouse think gays should be relegated to second class status? Who knows!

other things Althouse excludes from the gay hater Tony "Homophobe" Scalia, in the very same document:

The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," Bowers, supra, at 196–the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity.

That review is readily satisfied here by the same rational basis that satisfied it in Bowers–society’s belief that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," 478 U.S., at 196.

Scalia: My morality trumps your freedom: Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

Scalia, who compares gayness to incest and bestiality and then hypocritically claims to be objective: It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.

Scalia puts his stamp of approval on anti-gay bigotry.Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive

I don't think that Scalia was equating homosexuality with bestiality, rather he was comparing two areas of law that were legislated morality. His argument is that it is the legislature that is in tune with the morality of the populace, much more so than the court. He then argues that there is a rational basis for allowing legislatures to legislate "moral issues." His argument brings in bestiality, child porn, and polygamy as examples of legislated morality that may cause problems if the Supreme COurt becomes the legislator of morality rather than the actual legislature.

Scalia has, in other statements ignored by Althouse, compared homosexuality to bestiality....

Well, if you're going to defend homosexual conduct on the grounds of a right to privacy, such a defense should apply a fortiori to bestiality, since it is even more private (requiring only the presence of one person) than homosexuality (which requires two.)

Can someone provide a link to this because honestly, I'm puzzled about this. I've visited friends in the hospital before and no one has ever asked me if I was friend, family or lover. I wasn't aware that there was any non-medical restriction on hospital visitation rights.

Denying them parental rights, in some cases even where they are the biological parent.

Methadras - "I'd love to see Scalia bring suit against this fat, bloated pig of a human being."

Good luck on that one.

But based on your rather bizarre description of Barney as "a long standing, money grubbing, opportunist pig who has accomplished little to nothing in his life except for getting the morons of his district to re-elect him over and over again" and "for him to out and out lie about Justice Scalia, impugn him by calling him a homophobe without a shred of decency or proof is frankly libelous and defamatory."

If Barney was not a public figure he'd probably have a damn good case to bring against you.

Well, if you're going to defend homosexual conduct on the grounds of a right to privacy, such a defense should apply a fortiori to bestiality, since it is even more private (requiring only the presence of one person) than homosexuality (which requires two.)

That's the understatement of the year. Of course, like most homophobes, Methadras just wants to suck some cock and have a guy blow a load all over his face. You should see some of the private e-mails and pixxx he's sent me. Yikes.

jmm43, that's a very charitable interpretation of Scalia's lumping together of homosexuality, bestiality, and incest. It ignores his long record of casting homosexuality as immoral:

Of course it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings. But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible — murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals — and could exhibit even “animus” toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of “animus” at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct.”

IOW, "it's okay to discriminate against gays."

Here is Scalia proclaiming to a right wing gathering, that homosexuality is "an immoral lifestyle choice."

In the quote you defend and this one Scalia makes the statement that homosexuality is "immoral".

Me, I think lying scumbag Justices who perpetuate and defend bigotry, think the state can dictate our love, and who throw elections to their cronies are immoral creeps.

Wow, it's hard to know who to hate in this thread, the knuckle dragging troglodyte gay-haters or the whining, vaporous vegan homosexuals.

I won't tell you who to hate, but considering the absolute immoral deviance that some if not a lot your sexually oriented brethren enjoy putting out on public display as a form of tolerance and acceptance, should make that call pretty easy. The fact that they delude themselves with being vaporous and vegan shouldn't cloud your judgment. Yeah, yeah, I know I'm an asshole, but fuck you too.

It's times like these that I remember that I despise Democrats for co-opting the noble gay agenda

There is nothing noble about the 'gay' agenda. It's so splintered into it's factional interests that it's been rendered useless. Homosexuals would have a much better time coming to the table with humility and unpretentiousness in mind. Under those conditions reason and kinship would win out over the unfettered 'fuck you' that many homosexuals would rather display.

I'll bet you a lot of people feel this way, but no one will say it for fear of offending certain artificially constructed sensitivities.

into their "coalition" of liars, sinners, swindlers and socialists and the Republicans for allowing this to happen by submitting their party to the will of social conservatives above all others.

Too true, but I'd take a social conservative over the what Democrats have been offering for over 70 years any day of the week.

I respect the reasons for having two political parties, but does it have to be these two?

No, but the problem you will have is that it will simply coalesce back into the same thing all over again. It's better in the long run to change the parties from within than it is to throw them out and substitute them for a short term gain in core ideology only to have them transmogrify back into what you threw out the last time. Yeah, I'm in asshole. Love you too pooky.

"Question comes up: is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."

Methadras said..."I won't tell you who to hate, but considering the absolute immoral deviance that some if not a lot your sexually oriented brethren enjoy putting out on public display as a form of tolerance and acceptance, should make that call pretty easy."

And: "Homosexuals would have a much better time coming to the table with humility and unpretentiousness in mind."

And: "I'll bet you a lot of people feel this way, but no one will say it for fear of offending certain artificially constructed sensitivities."

Alpha, thanks for the link but I find it interesting that you didn't include this quote.

William Eskridge, a gay professor at Yale Law School Yale Law School, or YLS, is the law school of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. Established in 1843, the school offers the J.D., LL.M., J.S.D., and M.S.L. degrees in law. It also hosts visiting scholars and several legal research centers. , has socialized with Scalia. "He's obviously comfortable with gay people and is always open to vigorous debate--on and off the bench," Eskridge says. "But he definitely believes that the state can regulate morality and that homosexuality is a moral issue. He believes that the democratic process should make decisions about private morality, even what goes on in people's bedrooms. It doesn't mean that he would necessarily personally vote for sodomy laws, but that if he does, the courts should not take away the decision."

Scalia comfortable with gay people? Certainly doesn't sound like a bigot to me. Bigots usually aren't comfortable around people they despise.

"There you have it. Scalia is accusing gays of "promoting their agenda." This is the language of the religious right who have initiated and led the fight over homosexuality."

That is a new low in stupidity even for you Beta Liberal and my God you set the stupidity bar low but this one takes the cake. Of course gays have an agenda. Just like every other interest group in the country. There is, as Scalia nothing wrong with that. Why are you so threatened by the idea of gays having an agenda? You homophobic moron.

Denying them marriage and partner benefits.

Bullshit. No one is denying them anything that the private sector isn't free to give and often does. Stop insulting gay people by demanding that only the government can validate their lifestyle. You are a fucking homophobe beta and it is getting old.

- Denying them visitation rights when their partner is in the hospital.

Give one link where that has ever happened? Again, I am sure if homophobic hate mongers like you ran hospitals it probably would. But fortuneately most people are not like you so stop assuming they are. And STOP LYING.

- Denying them parental rights, in some cases even where they are the biological parent.

There are gay parents all over America. Nice, normal people who win custody disputes all the time. Yes, some lose those disputes but straight people lose them to. Gays are not wierd sub group that needs your help getting their kids. Stop assuming they are some kind freaks.

- Allowing employment discrimination.

Some religions object to homosexuality. It is not right but it is also a free country. It is pretty clear from your writing that you are a bigoted homophobe of the first order. I don't think the government should haul you into court much less people who have a legitimate religous objection.

I don't mind that Scalia's a bigot (hey, we pay taxes too!) but I do mind that in his position he's either a hypocrite or deficient in logic:

Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.

However, the law in question concerned not homosexuality per se but sodomy, which hets can practice too. Hence that student a few years back who asked Scalia if he sodomized his wife. In Scalia's stated view that should have been a perfectly good question, which people (the state) have a legitimate interest in asking. Yet he not only refused to answer, but seemed miffed that it was even asked.

Daddy - Just call any hospital and they'll tell you visitation in many areas of the hospital, the ICU and other areas for instance, is limited to immediate family, and most won't allow children under the age of 12 in some cases.

This is not something that's new, and it's a real sticking point with gays and heterosexuals who are not married or related, but merely "partners."

Jeremy on Methadras - But based on your rather bizarre description of Barney as "a long standing, money grubbing, opportunist pig who has accomplished little to nothing in his life except for getting the morons of his district to re-elect him over and over again" and "for him to out and out lie about Justice Scalia, impugn him by calling him a homophobe without a shred of decency or proof is frankly libelous and defamatory."

If Barney was not a public figure he'd probably have a damn good case to bring against you.

No, Jeremy, in libel suits the truth is the only defense Methadras needs. And he IS truthful about the loathsome Barney Franks.

It's called the Ninth Amendment. And they are called "unenumerated rights".

So since the right to privacy and sex with whomever you want are constitutionally guaranteed, shouldn't liberals like Barney Fag and his supporters here be calling for the repeal of laws against child sex, incest, sex with animals, and whatnot, as well as demanding plural marriage and incestuous marriage?

They didn't allow partners or close friends. It was a crazy policy but it would have screwed the woman's live in boy friend the same way. That case has nothing to do with gays and everything to do with hospital policy and descrimination against un married people.

It wasn't because the woman was gay. It was because she wasnt' married. Not everyone hates gays like you do.

Hmmm. (1) Poor reading comprehension. (2) unaware that his housemate was running a brothel out of that house. (3) wanting to "roll the dice" by encouraging subprime morstages.When will libs stop telling us how smart this guy is?

Don't forget his other boyfriend was one of the big wigs at Fannie and Freddie. Actually, all things considered Barney's pimp boyfriend was probably the most ethical partner he ever had.

The only reason people think Frank is smart is because they assume charm and a sense of humor is synonomous with intelligence. Frank is a charming funny guy sometimes. He, however, has the intellect of a slow 10 year old when it comes to anything relating to the economy.

Efforts to pass laws in various states outlawing this sort of cruel denial of visitation have been opposed by the Holy Posers (a.k.a. "Religious Right").

In the case cited, if the documentation provided was valid, the hospital should have recognized it. End of story. It doesn't mean gays "need" marriage; it means that the hospital screwed up.

Meanwhile, the bigotry you express in your statement about religious people is perfectly typical of gay leftists, and is the reason why you receive such public disdain. Does your sexual orientation make you an antireligious bigot, or is it simply your choice that you hide behind your sexual orientation?

"Go point taken. Then again, if its also a restriction for heterosexuals who aren't married but live together then it's not discriminating against gays solely so that one's not a persuasive argument."

That is exactly right. You have to understand the Alpha Liberal assumes that it is about the woman being gay, rather than just being unmarried, because at some deep level he can't accept the fact that gays are a part of normal, society.

Hoosier/Larry--homosexual is not pejorative/derogatory and I didn't say it was. And you don't need to hang around gay people to notice that "gay" is the word everyone uses. Just watch TV or read the paper or the internet.

So, a legal document meant to stand the test of time is supposed to use current slang instead of proper terminology? What happens to understanding what he wrote when the popular term changes in the future as it's bound to do? The word "gay" used to mean "happy". According to this dictionary entry, it means:

"I won't tell you who to hate, but considering the absolute immoral deviance that some if not a lot your sexually oriented brethren enjoy putting out on public display as a form of tolerance and acceptance, should make that call pretty easy."

Not really. The majority of the immoral deviance and sleaze and degradation and filth I see on the streets and in the media is "heterosexual" in nature. You just notice the nasty faggots because they're not nearly as common. And like most people who complain about deviant homosexuals, you probably like to see heterosexual immoral deviance.

I'm against all forms of demonstrative public deviance, whatever the orientation of the deviants.

You know what? I recant the moniker that Barney Franks homosexuality is irrelevant. It is relevant in the context of the besmirching of someone like Scalia.

The qualifying of the word "homosexuals" with the words "repugnant" and "revolting" is hardly subtle. This is fine, just so long as everyone here knows that Methadras' vociferous hatred of gay people influences every comment he makes.

There you go again. Trying to dictate to others who is a vociferous hater of homosexuals and who is not. You don't have that power nor that knowledge. So really? Every comment? Truly? Are you lying right now or just feel slightly righteous because you think you've tried to label me a hater of homosexuals only to fail at doing it once again? Am I vociferous hater of you, someone who is a homosexual? No. Am I vociferous hater of many of my homosexual friends that simply shake their heads at the current state of many of the current mores of the homosexual community? No. I don't hate homosexuals, just the ones like Barney Frank. An in your face, died in the wool, raving leftist who wants you to know that everyone is a homophobe just because he is a homosexual.

Using the qualifier of homosexual is separate and not in conjunction with Frank being revolting or repugnant. He just is regardless of his sexual proclivities, but more so refers to his ideology, personal character, and general disgusting nature. Why do you care how I characterize Barney Frank? I wasn't characterizing you that way or is it because you too are a homosexual that you feel how he represents himself or rather how others view him directly reflects on you too? I didn't realize your ego was that big.

"And hospitals have a legitimate right to limit how many people are tromping through an ICU."

Why are you discussing quantity of visitors? We're discussing the identity of those visitors. If a gay person's partner is in ICU and they have but one visitor and that visitor is their partner, they can deny them entry. That has nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with discrimination. I have no problem with hospitals restricting quantity of visitors.

I don't think so. I mean, some gay people simply aren't likeable for reasons that are only tangentially related to their being gay. It's not homophobic to dislike them for these reasons.

Scalia puts his stamp of approval on anti-gay bigotry."Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home."

a. Cons want to deny gays the right to marry. b. Cons say any rights denied to them for not being married have nothing to do with being gay.

You're so full of shit you're about to explode.

3:00 PM"

S your response to the unmarried straight person in the situation of the woman in the link is "go fuck yourself and get married"? You apparently hate straight people almost as much as you hate gay people.

Joseph, are you now claiming that "homosexual" is a value-free term to use?

My mistake if I thought your objection indicated that the word had negative connotations.

The people who use that term [homosexual] today usually do it because they are uncomfortable talking about sexuality or because they have some ideological opposition to recognizing gays as a group or anything but people who engage in a clinical behavior.

I'm apparently reading value into that. And reading value into the fact that you brought up the use of the word as indicative of something important and negative in Scalia's attitude toward homosexuals. Undoubtedly I'm reading into it what I want to read into it, and using the term "homosexual" because gays make me uncomfortable and I'd rather not think of them as a group, but just as people who engage in clinical behavior.

Methadras said..."I won't tell you who to hate, but considering the absolute immoral deviance that some if not a lot your sexually oriented brethren enjoy putting out on public display as a form of tolerance and acceptance, should make that call pretty easy."

And: "Homosexuals would have a much better time coming to the table with humility and unpretentiousness in mind."

And: "I'll bet you a lot of people feel this way, but no one will say it for fear of offending certain artificially constructed sensitivities."

Oh dear. I've been branded a homophobe yet again. It's amazing and embarrassing that someone like you would make such a conclusion. My homosexual friends laugh at conclusions like yours every time I send it to them like I did just now. I'll get a chuckle or two and they will joke with me about how they would love to diddle my pure homophobia to make them feel special and dirty. Plus they always tell me vaginas are ick.

a. Cons want to deny gays the right to marry.b. Cons say any rights denied to them for not being married have nothing to do with being gay.

You're so full of shit you're about to explode."

Shut up, you straight motherfucker. You have no right to use the issues of my identity group to promote the agenda of your disgustingly filthy political party. As a card carrying, recruiting member of the gay agenda, I have the absolute moral authority to tell you to mind your own business, breeder. We're on to you. We know that your party uses us like it uses black Americans. And then when we become inconvenient or we happen to disagree with your party's other disastrous policies, you throw us under the bus. We've got your number.

The State should not be in the business of sanctioning any kind of marriage, gay or otherwise. Until this practice of giving legal weight to religious and/or romantic relationships ceases altogether, this issue will be intractable and tyrannous to everyone.

"Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home."

That statement is bigoted. It's intolerant and saying that they want to exclude others from participating in society based on what those others do in their personal lives.

Plus, I've lived around many people who are gay in my day. I've never seen anyone "openly engage in homosexual conduct."

Althouse should really be ashamed for protecting and defending such bigotry. Maybe she thinks gays should be stripped of certain rights of citizenship.

What about it, Ann Althouse? What discrimination against gays do you support?

"Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home."

I think truth ought to be a defense against charges of bigotry.

Many Americans also harbor irrational fear of blacks mugging them and bristle at the idea of women in leadership positions and think Muslims can't be patriotic Americans. Although it may be true that people hold these opinions, listing them in a judicial opinion as a rationale to justify discriminatory laws should not be seen as a harmless citation of fact.

"The fact is that it is cruel to keep a loving partner away from their partner dying in a hospital.

It's mean spirited and nasty. And THAT is what Scalia and the Religious right are. Cruel creeps."

But allowing gays to marry would do nothing to help the straight but unmarried loving partner in that situation. Do you give a shit about them or just whatever interest group you can find to use as an excuse to shove your agenda down everyone's throat?

I am very serious and not trolling when I call you homophobic. You don't view gay people as full human beings. You look at them as something less than human. As tools to be used to support your agenda and nothing more.

The fact is that it is cruel to keep a loving partner away from their partner dying in a hospital.

And failing to recognize that the hospital has legitimate reasons to limit access is evil in that it does nothing to solve the problem of getting loving partners permission to visit.

Utterly failing to understand the legitimate interest of the other party in favor of getting a self-righteous hate on for those evil people is gratifying to *you* and to no one else.

It offers no solutions for the hospital staff that must, with no real way to winnow a girlfriend or boyfriend dejour from a long-term mate, limit the number of feet and germs and simply people getting in the way.

If your only solution is "that's evil" then you've offered nothing but your own impotent outrage. And who needs it?

You know that I think that gay marriage is, or could be, a good thing. But even with gay marriage, partners would still be excluded (as several people have noted). Legal documents other than marriage could likely name those admitted in emergencies and those with legal right to make medical decisions, but they have to be done ahead of time.

I realize that it's easier for you to simply pronounce people motivated by hate, but it's lazy. Lazy and stupid.

The issue of hospital visitation is less compelling than it used to be because it has often been enforced by people with superior legal relationships to an incapacitated gay person (e.g., whackjob parents and siblings) against people with superior real-life relationships (e.g., gay partners). But a few things have made this less of an issue today: (1) fewer and fewer parents have hateful views toward gays, (2) those that do are more likely to be informed about legal options they can take to minimize the risk, (3) more gay people are open with their parents/siblings about their relationships today, and (4) hospital staff is less likely to roll over and defer to the wishes of hateful parents.

Do Methadras' "homosexual" friends know that he refers to them as "homosexual"?

Where are they? Do they comment here?

What do Methadras and his "homosexual friends" do for fun? Where did they meet? And what "homosexuals" (outside of caricatures of gay people FROM SOMEONE'S IMAGINATION) would bother going around telling their straight friends that "vaginas are ick"???

My homosexual friends laugh at conclusions like yours every time I send it to them like I did just now.

Bull Shit. You don't have homosexual friends and if you did they would not respond the way you say they would. You are a major phobe and like I said nothing wrong with that just don't hurt anyone. Why not celebrate your homophobic "tendencies", why just denial in being a homophobe. If a bunch of gays are calling you a homophobe, sorry darling, you are a homophobe. And you have a very unhealthy obsession with the gay. You do rest areas don't you?

"OTOH, if the churches want to practice discrimination in their marriage policies, they're free to do so. But they're not free to impose their doctrine on others."

That is some serious liberal newspeak there. What praytell does it mean to impose their doctrine on otheres? How exactly does the Catholic Church impose the doctrine of Papal infalability on me or anyone else? When you say "enfoce on others" you really mean, "say anything or run their church in any way you don't like". but you are all for freedom right? Bullshit.

If you didn't have a problem with gay people and didn't think they were freaks you wouldn't be so defensive about knowing them. I have probably known lots of gay people to. But you know what, since I don't obsess about other people's sexuality, I couldn't tell you who more than one or two of them were. You in contrast seem to keep some Bill Moyers like list of gays you have known. Got to keep an eye on them I guess.

John the Bewildered: What praytell does it mean to impose their doctrine on otheres?

Oh, come on.

You know that a core argument, made by Scalia as shown here, and repeated thousands of times is that someone's Church is opposed to homosexuality, therefore the government should pass a law outlawing homosexuality.

(some) Church doctrine = "no marriage between homosexuals"

Laws outlawing marriage between homosexuals are laws imposing church doctrine.

"Laws outlawing marriage between homosexuals are laws imposing church doctrine."

If no atheists were against gay marriage you might have a point. But of course lots of athiests are. More importantly, religious people cannot agree about gay marriage. Some religions allow it some don't. Gay marriage or lack thereof is anything but church doctrine.

Where does this open homosexual conduct happen? Are there invites for a time and place or is it just spontaneous where they gay says, wait for this breeders I am going to openly engage in homosexuality for you right now. Fasten your seat belts. You are in for a bumby ride

Oh, it must be the gay hits on the straight. Yes, we run around hitting on straights during the night hours.

Do Methadras' "homosexual" friends know that he refers to them as "homosexual"?

Of course they do. They know they are homosexuals and they know I don't refer to them as gay or lesbian. Their sexual orientation is he same in my eyes and they appreciate that I haven't co-opted the language for the sake of being PC.

But I see the little game you are playing, pooky. You just can't take it can you. It's just too much to bear the mere thought that I would have friends who are homosexuals. Your narrow-minded neural receptors must be firing in overdrive at the thought. But let's keep playing shall we.

Where are they? Do they comment here?

If they comment here, I don't know about it. As to where they are? Many of them live in Hillcrest, a small homosexual enclave just north of downtown San Diego. A lot of them I've come to have a friendship with through my work and through my wifes business.

What do Methadras and his "homosexual friends" do for fun?

Oh, we have parties. We are having one this weekend that is supporting our local Muscular Dystrophy chapter with a wine and cheese tasting party. Many of them will be there. We BBQ, we go to some of the local homosexual hangouts. Ever been to Lips to see all of the TV's/TS's dance and sing? It's great fun.

Where did they meet?

Do you even see what you are starting to sound like? The homosexual inquisition, perhaps.

And what "homosexuals" (outside of caricatures of gay people FROM SOMEONE'S IMAGINATION) would bother going around telling their straight friends that "vaginas are ick"???

When my 'real' friends joke and laugh because they don't hold any pretensions about who they are to me and that I don't judge them for who they are and the fact that we love each other as brothers and sisters and long, long time friends who would give the shirt off each others backs to help and support in times of need with no questions asked.

Besides, I'm sure your vagina is ick too. I mean after all this little game you've played only shows everyone here how much of an overly sensitive pussy you are anyway. Get over yourself little kid, you just aren't that worth it.

Correcting myself: Scalia made the "immoral" argument. Thousands of others made the argument that their church has such a position, therefore the government should pass a law upholding the church doctrine.

Like I said nothing wrong with that. I don't give a shit if people hate me for being a homo.

That's life.

Just don't physically hurt anyone, that's all.

And please point me in the direction of the public displays of homosexuality. It sounds fabulous. Unfortunately, I never see it walking around one of the gayest cities in the world and I feel like I am missing out. And I walk everywhere with the dogs. Gays don't even have public displays of homosexual dogs anymore. Now the gays have big rough dogs that aren't even gay. What happened to the gay dogs?

I am heading to yoga class which is about 75% gay no public displays of homosexuality there. Just a bunch of fags sweating...and not talking to each other.